Question regarding the Dunsborough shark enclosure trial, its review, costs, and potential alternatives. The response provides information on the review's status, costs, and addresses concerns about the enclosure's integrity.

AnsweredQoN 917Legislative Council
Asked
10 September 2014
Portfolio
Leader of the House representing the Premier

QuestionView source ↗

SHARK DRUM LINE PROGRAM
917. Hon LYNN MacLAREN to the
Leader of the House representing the Premier:
I refer to the document titled ''Western Australian
Shark Hazard Mitigation Drum Line Program 2014–17: Public Environmental
Review'', dated June 2014 and written by the Department of the Premier
and Cabinet.
(1) Section
2.4.3 of the PER document states that a review of the Dunsborough trial
enclosure is due to be completed in June 2014. Can the Premier please table
this review?
(2) If no to
(1), will the Premier please give reasons for not tabling the review of the
Dunsborough trial?
(3) What was the total public cost of the trial?
(4) Is the
Premier aware that there were large gaps and holes in the netting-type material
that formed the enclosure?
(5) Does the
Premier now agree that a trial enclosure using technology developed by WA company
Eco Shark Barrier might have been a better use of public funds?

AnswerView source ↗

I thank the member for some notice of this question. I
respond on behalf of the Leader of the House.
(1)–(2)
I am advised that the evaluation report of the trial of the beach enclosure at
Old Dunsborough Beach was received yesterday evening by the Office of Science
in the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. It is necessary to review the
report.
(3) The City of
Busselton was provided with $165 370 as a grant through the applied research
program beach enclosure trial for shark hazard mitigation, administered by the
Office of Science. The total cost of the enclosure, including manufacture,
installation, maintenance and monitoring, was $193 511.
(4) The City of
Busselton has advised that at the beginning of the trial period a dip in the
seabed meant that an additional section of net and weighted chain was
installed. There were no gaps or holes identified during the trial period.
(5) No.

Explore WA Government Data

Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.

Explore more